What is the E-Cat’s First Home? [MFMP Project Dog Bone Video]

Here’s a very interesting video created for the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s “Project Dog Bone”, an attempt to replicate the E-Cat reactor tested in Lugano earlier this year. This video is made by Bob Greenyer who recently visited the Heat Treatment Congress in Köln, Germany, where he studies a number of interesting heating elements and devices that could help understand how Industrial Heat is planning to use its E-Cat Reactors.

Bob explains that the purpose of this video is to try to understand Industrial Heat’s strategy for industrial use of the E-Cat, and are asking: “What is the cat’s first home?”

  • Bob Greenyer

    Yes

  • Ophelia Rump

    It seems like the first industrial installation is a retrofit.
    The Industrial Heat designs look like replacement parts.
    This would mean that there can be no easy fall back to the original heat source in the event of an outage.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

      Hi all

      In Reply to Ophelia Rump, I see no reason they cannot go back to the old system if they needed. From the video it looks like replacement parts so like using a reusable battery rather than a single shot, heat is heat can come from any source. Just do not bother to attach the high voltage, or just reduce the current, probably part of the design anyway, or reduce the gas.

      If as I suspect they are brick furnaces then they will probably have a patent for an LENR heated brick furnace and indeed any other type of furnace.

      First though they will simply make bricks at 5% less than their competitors, slowly driving them out of business. A good reason to keep the technology quiet while taking the massive extra profits and as they are an LLC no one will be any the wiser for at least a year or two, all the skepto-numpties do is make Rossi and Darden more money ROFL :D.

      Kind Regards walker

      • Ophelia Rump

        I was thinking of easy fallback being in the sense of switching off one system and switching the other on.

        They would need to cool the furnace, pull it apart and rebuild it, then reheat it.
        I can see why the customer would not like that, yes they could fall back but not easily.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I don’t think they just going to flip the switch here. They likely have several furnaces in place and are running a furnace now. So the existing furnace will continue to run until the bugs are worked out of the e-cat furnace. I mean on any industrial job site they don’t just run one diesel generator, but have several and can take one off line for maintains while another runs.

      I suspect the situation is much the same for these industrial furnaces (they have several on site).

      However I dare say that the “path” and business ideas of Rossi and IH are much clearer. And I think this bodes well that day by day this slams the nail deeper and deeper that Rossi’s e-cat is HIGHLY unlikely some kind of scam. Everything shows a direction and a man on a mission, and mission that makes a lot of sense.

      Regards,
      Albert k.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    Knowing who is involved in Industrial Heat and looking at their history, the obvious product is bricks 😉

    Kind Regards walker

    • Daniel Maris

      Makes a lot of sense.

    • mytakeis

      Paving stones and ceramic tile with the logo in the lower right… “made with e-cat clean energy”

    • hempenearth

      Three and a half hour drive for Rossi to get from Raleigh to Grover, where General Shale acquired a manufacturing facility in late 2013

  • Obvious

    Nice job, Bob. It was good to see recent boiler tech compared what Rossi and IH are doing. It shows that they know what they are attempting to do, and that the designs we have seen from them are not “one off” creations made out of necessity instead of a planned replacement part.

    I’ll leave you with an enigmatic response from Rossi regarding gas use and the mouse:

    Q: 1: Does the “mouse” in the newest version of the E-cat do more than just
    replacing the gas burner of the gas-cat version ? Honestly, It is very difficult
    to understand a “gas-cat” without chimneys on the container or on each one of
    the reactors.
    A: no.
    JoNP – April 8, 2013

    • Bob Greenyer

      Classic Rossi

  • LuFong

    It seems to me this video would be an excellent marketing video for Industrial Heat. Great job Bob Greenyer and the MFMP project. Looking forward to the actual tests.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks, it was made possible by people like you.

      We’ll measure twice and cut once.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      A proposal for advertising: Remove Rossi from the above photo and replace him by Arnold Schwarzenegger (one finger should be on the trigger).

  • EEStorFanFibb

    That was interesting. Thanks Bob!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Supported by the interested public, the MFMP functions to bring understanding and independent and empirically derived facts to this field, whatever they maybe.

      This will help guide our tests of the Lugano Report. This will be a tough journey as we are travelling with partial sight, but there are many definite tests we can conduct that will add further resolution to the story.

      We are very happy that many new faces are helping us with the effort, particularly on exploring control logic.

  • Bernie777

    Is Rossi trying to replace furnace heating elements with the E-Cat? Yes, that has been obvious for two years.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I feel a bit of a fool in that case, was it really obvious for two years? Where was this discussed? I must have my head in the sand! It would be really helpful if you could point out any additional info I have missed over the past two years so I can present something that at least is keeping up with common knowledge. Geez and I spent 10 hours putting the video together, I would rather have slept if all I was doing was pointing out what everybody already knew.

      Personally speaking, I must be slow, I was only aware that he was using furnace element technology to heat reactors to operating temperature from early last year, but the hottest stable teperature there was independent reliable evidence for before the recent report, was from the Ferrara experiment report released 16.5.2013, in that report, they said a reactor had shown a hottest spot of 859.1ºC. Before that there was no real hard evidence of anything other than something useful to produce process steam.

      Had Rossi specifically said before that he was developing products for the furnace industry?

      • Billy Jackson

        i wouldn’t say that invalidates your video. just that the video makes all the pieces collected together easier to understand for those of us who are not as well versed 🙂 I think he’s stated all along that his first product was going to be a heating device (aka furnace or water heater) and that he had one heating his plant at one point (unconfirmed except via rossi statement)

        • Bob Greenyer

          Few, I feel better now, it has been a punishing two weeks.

          • artefact

            Great video.

            Rossi was asked to use some new develeped stirling engines to couple with the HotCat. He said he wants only to use products that are on the market. He seems to follow that line also with the parts the HotCat consists of (the heating tube in the video) as long as that is possible.

          • Freethinker

            No need to feel anything bad, Bob.

            I thank you for your video. It was illuminating.

          • bitplayer

            Great job, Bob, and very well worth the clearly extensive effort. It brings newcomers up to date, locks in the view that IH is targeting the market for “industrial heat”, and reinforces the idea that IH/Rossi are being serious about commercialization.

      • Bernie777

        Goes way back to when he was touting the home E-Cat, and heating his work space with an E-Cat. Don’t beat yourself up to much, not everyone has the time to be an LENR internet junkie.

  • Billy Jackson

    If we took nothing more than a Alumina container roughly same size, and dimension of the one used in the test. Applied the same wattage of power and let it running for several days using nothing but the container as the experiment.. how hot would it be? would that simple experiment not show that Rossi’s was proven correct? if the heating from the container never approached that 1400+ Celsius temperatures then something had to be going on.. it seems that if you can apply the same wattage to a similar device that the differences in temperature readings would be the actual ” Rossi effect”

    would seem an easy way to prove something is happening even if we didnt know what it was.

    • LuFong

      In other words, repeat the experiment but calibrate the dummy to actual operating conditions. Excellent idea! Why didn’t the Professors think of this 🙂

      • Billy Jackson

        I know they did. but the MFMP is trying to replicate what was done. I think a better use would be just testing the chamber as the dummy was. do they get the same readings? if the answer is yes.. then there you go.. 900 watts cant heat it up to 1400 degrees Celsius for 32 days.. that means it was getting more power out than in.. end of debate Rossie effect is real and no known chemical reaction puts out that level of power for 32 days at such a steady controllable rate.

        it eliminates the need for fuel testing or guessing of proportions of fuel, evaporation or burn rates.. it would seem to me to remove just alot of the guess work that MFMP is doing right now.

        • LuFong

          We already know that 900W can’t get you 1400° under normal conditions. Physics tells you that. The question is was it 900W and was it 1400°? Ditto for the other operating points in the test. By repeating the test one can verify the results, the assumptions, and the methods used.

          In my opinion it’s very unlikely that MFMP will get the fuel/EM pulse right to show 3+ COP (although it’s certainly possible) so the dummy test is primary (as you say) and could help validate some of the main conclusions of the report.

          • Billy Jackson

            yes but if we verified that the dummy readings were close (within an acceptable range of error) .. that means the readings were correct and the equipment was calibrated right. which leans hard in favor of the active test being right.

            • LuFong

              Dummy reading. As McKubre said, it’s difficult to do an extrapolation from a single point….

              • Bob Greenyer

                We wouldn’t do a single point, we would do what we always to and characterise over a range of temperatures.

                • Guest

                  We intend to do so with a selection of high temp thermocouples and/or a Williams 2 wavelength pyrometer which is uniquely designed to deal with the challenges posed by Alumina if we can.

              • Billy Jackson

                not understanding what you mean sorry. If i take a Alumina tube of a set weight, thickness, and purity. apply X amount of wattage, i would expect it to heat up to X amount of heat every single time, repeating the experiment should produce the same results unless their is something about the device that decays over time making it less useful as you continue.

                If we cant validate the dummy calibration test then proceeding on to the harder live test (and all variables that entails) would be an act of futility as we have no clue what your readings are going to be or even if your doing it right.

                what values are we missing for the tube that would cause a failure?

                • LuFong

                  The dummy test was a single temperature point reading at about 500W. This was fine to verify their method for calculating heat production and to provide a single data point on the calibration curve.

                  But the test should also apply power over a range of values such that the temperature rises to over 1400°C which is what Bob said they are planning to do. This would result in a calibration curve (and other measurements like internal current etc.) that is based on interpolation and not extrapolation from a single point. (It would also validate the assumptions about emissivity and translucence.) If they cannot quite reach the 1400°C then they could go as high as possible to create a curve from which they can extrapolate an envelope of possible values for 1400°C.

                  If they start with a device similar to the dummy reactor and as you say “if the heating from the container never approached that 1400+ Celsius temperatures then something had to be going on.” This could be the Rossi Effect or it could be the assumptions or measurements but we won’t know this unless we bring the device up to 1400°C and verify all measurements (internal and external) and make the comparisons.

                • Billy Jackson

                  Thank you.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We will do a 3 Phase test with a PCE830 first.

            Then a dummy once we have established the most appropriate and cost effective way to make one.

            • Billy Jackson

              That’s the test i am interested in then 😛

        • LuFong

          There are two main arguments against the validity of the test that I see. The first is the electrical measurements. The data appears to be internally inconsistent and certain extraordinary performance of the Inconel wires would also be necessary (huge temperature dependent resistance properties). The second is the transmutation products are so unexpected that one (at least some people) wonders whether there were any transmutations at all.

          The alumina transparency one for me is settled as the the tube is supposedly opaque at the wavelengths measured and used to determine heat radiance. I suppose this can be verified or measured in a different way. Calibration at operating temperatures would go a long way to resolving this issue.

          I think the MFMP tests can give additional data points toward resolving these questions.

          • Billy Jackson

            yes but wouldn’t a test on just the chamber be the same as verifying their electrical measurements? if we get close to the same readings then obviously they did it right.. if we have huge variances then one of us did it wrong.

            the dummy reactor seems to be the easier test to verify

            • LuFong

              Agreed.

          • Omega Z

            They used 2 PCE 830’s.
            1 positioned between the mains & Rossi’s control box & 1 after the control box. I don’t see any problem with the input.

            They also did a separate check of the mains before hooking up.

        • LuFong

          The MFMP is trying to replicate the test including producing a working E-Cat like device so that they can disseminate the device to the others who can then work toward understanding the science behind it. So they have two goals in mind I think: repeat the test and produce a device/platform that can be studied by others. It would be nice to have a device that actually demonstrates the Rossi Effect but that is not strictly necessary.